Kerala High Court
K.S. Shibin vs The Village Officer on 22 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JULY 2021 / 31ST ASHADHA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2014
PETITIONER/S:
K.S. SHIBIN
S/O.SOMANANTHAN, 3G, APPLE CART APARTMENT,
NERTTOOR P.O., KANAYANNOOR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.PRAMOD
SMT.R.REJI ATTINGAL
RESPONDENT/S:
THE VILLAGE OFFICER
KUMBALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT -682 304.
BY ADVS.
GOVERNMENT PLEADER
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT.SHEEJA.C.S., GP
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2014
2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
===================
WP(C) No. 11457 OF 2014
===================
Dated this the 22nd day of July 2021
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed with following prayers;
"i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ order or calling for the original of Ext. P3
and quashing the same.
ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ,
order or directing the respondent to effect mutation of the
property covered by Ext.P1 sale deed in favour of the
petitioner.
iii. Grant such other relief as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper."
2. The short facts are like this ;
Petitioner purchased an extent of 1.68 ares of land comprised
in Sy. No.848/8 (block No. 15. Re. Sy. No. 209/24) of Kumbalam
Village, Ernakulam District as per Ext. P1 sale deed. As per Ext. P2
application, he sought mutation of the property in his favour. As
per Ext.P3, the same is rejected by the respondent stating that,
WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2014
the petitioner is not in possession of the property and the
boundaries are also not fixed. Aggrieved by the same, this writ
petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that,
the petitioner is having documents to prove that he is in possession
of the property and he can convince the respondent that he is the
absolute owner of the property. The learned counsel submitted that,
the petitioner may be given an opportunity to produce the
documents before the respondent and the respondent may be
directed to decide the matter afresh.
5. The learned Government Pleader submitted that, there is
nothing to interfere in Ext.P3 order and if the petitioner wants to
produce additional documents, the respondent will consider the
same in accordance to law.
6. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the
case, I think, an opportunity can be given to the petitioner to
produce additional documents to prove the possession and title of
WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2014
the petitioner to substantiate his case that he can pay tax for the
property. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed with the following
manner;
1. The petitioner is free to file a representation along with
documents, if any, before the respondent for mutation of the
property and to pay basic tax within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
2. If such a representation and documents if any is received
by the respondent, the respondent will consider the same and pass
appropriate orders in the representation, after hearing the
petitioner and after going through the documents produced by the
petitioner, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period
of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the
representation.
(Sd/-)
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
LU
WP(C) NO. 11457 OF 2014
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 11457/2014
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE SALE DEED BEARING REG.
NO.1363/2013 OF MARAD S.R.O.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR MUTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13/11/2013
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R1(A) TRUE COPY OF BASIC TAX REGISTER OF RE.SY.NO.
// True Copy //
PA To Judge
